Models of STD transmission
Condoms are made to withstand the rigors of sex. But the models used by
governments to test condom durability have nothing to do with sex.
Even if the models used to test condoms are reasonable indicators of
whether a condom will break during sex, and thus whether they will
function adequately in preventing sperm from reaching the female's
reproductive system, but they may be rather poor indicators of whether a
microscopic pathogen can pass from one partner to the other.
For example, the water test can detect holes only as small as 5 mm, but
this sized hole is many times the size of sexually-transmitted viruses and
even of the bacterium Chylamidia.
Similarly, the airburst test is insensitive to small holes. So here we
find new limitations of existing methods of testing condoms: these models
don't give us a good understanding of the barrier to pathogens afforded by
a condom.
That is, these models have serious limitations when considering condoms as
barriers to infectious disease.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT: -
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d/Topics/Condoms/Text.html
GMCarter - 20 Jan 2005 12:17 GMT
>Models of STD transmission
>
>Condoms are made to withstand the rigors of sex. But the models used by
>governments to test condom durability have nothing to do with sex.
there he is back again making another feeble attempt to justify
f.cking without a condom!
I knew you had it in you paul. I'm sure you'll spew the same crop of
discredited, ridiculous articles as you have in the past!
George M. Carter
PaulKing - 20 Jan 2005 22:30 GMT
The only thing feeble here is your silly posts.
Is that the best you could do?
Hard to argue with a university paper.
PaulKing - 22 Jan 2005 09:45 GMT
That shut the idiot Carter up for a second.
Now he will post the usual insults I expect.